Jouritnl of Computer Assisted Lenriiing (1996) 4,193

Editorial; Co//uborutive /earning at a distance Recent Editorials have raised issues related to the distinction between cooperation and collaboration (ICAL 12, 2) and a possible framework for distributed communities suggested by Activity Theory (JCAL 12, 3). The latter theory identifies a number of 'nodes' in human activity: intentions, rules, division of labour and tools. How might these nodes be interpreted in collaborative learning activities?

For collaborative learning to be effective and satisfying, it is essential that members of the group establish a common basis for their work from the outset. This iirtmtiolzal stage requires a 'rich' communications medium and, currently, only face-to-face interaction is adequate although video- conferencing may provide a distance solution in the future. In any event, the tutor needs to monitor this stage closely and be aware that some group members might become (or feel - which is just as bad) disenfranchised. It is also essential that opportunities be provided for further 'rich' interactions in order to maintain, revise and develop the initial intentions.

The niles for the learning activity nccd to be made explicit. Of particular importance is the role of individuals in the community and their expectations of others and themselves. It should not be necessary to have a hierarchical structure when common goals have been set. Reality is a bit different. There are times when a flat, 'democratic' structure is appropriate for decision making but at other times someone has to tale the lead and steer the collaborative process. Organisa tion and leadership issues cannot be ignored if groups are to function effectively; they require discussion within the group during face-to-face meetings and require follow-up by the tutor.

The divisiori of Zaholrr is closely related to these organisational issues and to the establishment of adequate motives for every member of the community. Herein lies a major distinction between working and learning communities. In the former, a member may take on a minor role which matches hidher competence or availability to devote time to the activity. In a learning community the task must be capable of sub-division such that every member can contribute (in time and impact) equally. This is difficult to achieve when some members may have more time and ability to offer than others and yet all are to be assessed on the same basis.

Key tools for collaborative learning are the communication channels. The availability or choice of these is critical in the creation and maintenance of the distributed community. An awareness of the potential and the limitations of each available channel is required. It is also necessary to make choices based on the purpose of the communication and the value of this to individual membcrs of the community. It is clear that tutors play a key role, not only in being instrumental in making appropriate channels freely available but in inonitoring how they are being used.

Throughout the activity tutors have a key proactive role to play and need to dcvelop ncw competenccs to sustain fragile learning communities.

193